As far as the siting of the regionals, I agree that UConn gets an advantage. I can remeber on the men's side that it seemed that either Greensboro or Raleigh was an annual site for their regionals and that either Duke or UNC got that advantage while the UConn men seemed to be sent out west a lot. That's why I am in favor of holding all the regionals in one city. My choice is Las Vegas.

And as far as who gets put in UConn's region, I'd like to read some specifics as to who exactly would have given UConn a tougher time in the last 3 years.And remember that as the top 1 seed the best team that in fairness can be put against them would be the 8th & 9th seeded teams. Last year MSSt was better than how they played CT and the year before the same could be said of Texas. And as far as having the crowd behind them, I think UConn showed this year that a sold out arena on the road doesn't rattle them.

I think that the perception that UConn gets an otherwise weak region is more about the fact that UConn plays better in big games than most other elite teams, many of whom simply play poorly in the big spotlight. UConn has played stinker games in the past but in recent years they have played like a fine-tuned machine while many of their opponents have had that deer in the headlights look.

I largely agree with your post. I stated in my post that it didn't matter WHO UConn faced the past three years, as they would have won no matter what as they were by far the best team. (I limit it to the last 3 years because Baylor might have given them a good test 4 years ago but Louisville did the job before UConn had a chance.)

Regarding the bolded part of your post, seeding is not fair unfortunately. While they used to go with the S-curve, now they go with some abstract amalgam of the S-curve and the G-curve. Under the G-curve, UConn could be stuck with Maryland, even if they are the highest ranked 4-seed. Of course the Terps would need to lose at least another game for that to happen. Can you believe that their season ending RPI is perdicted to be only 19th and their RPI SOS is predicted to be 92nd? (It's 19th and 95th now.)

2000 UConn won the Richmond (VA) regional.
2001 UConn won the Pittsburgh (PA) regional
2002 UConn won the Milwaukee (WI) regional
2003 UConn won the Dayton (OH) regional
2004 UConn won the Hartford (CT) regional
2005 UConn lost the KC (MO) regional in the S16.
2006 UConn lost the Bridgeport (CT) regional in the E8.
2007 UConn lost the Fresno (CA) regional in the E8.
2008 UConn won the Greensboro (NC) Regional
2009 UConn won the Trenton (NJ) Regional
2010 UConn won the Dayton (OH) Regional
2011 UConn won the Philadelphia (PA) Regional
2012 UConn won the Kingston (RI) Regional
2013 UConn won the Bridgeport (CT) Regional*
2014 UConn won the Lincoln (NE) Regional
2015 UConn won the Albany (NY) Regional
2016 UConn won the Bridgeport (CT) Regional

*- the 2013 Regional was originally set to be held in Trenton, NJ, but was moved due to NCAA issues w/ NJ's attempt to legalize betting on collegiate and pro sports.

Currently, such gambling is still not legal.

So looking back, UConn has not always had favorable placement, but in 4 of the last 5 years, they were how far from campus? That's what Linkster and I agreed upon. And I realize that the 2012 site needed to be switched.

We can agree that UConn was likely to have won, certainly their region, the last three years regardless of who the ##2 and 3 seeds were. But that doesn't mean that UConn's pathway wasn't easier, and in 2014 way easier, than the other regions.

That it was unnecessary or irrelevant to the outcome doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is still an appearance issue. It really doesn't help the game or the tournament for fans or potential fans to look at the seeding and come away with an impression that the skids have been greased for one team.

I don't think anyone here claimed that it altered the eventual outcome.

BTW, my fix for the location problem (which is not limited to UConn, by the way) would be to allow regions to be hosted by anyone anywhere, but to prohibit any team from playing in a regional within 100 miles of their campus.

The women won't do that because they think it affects ticket sales and that the insignificant revenue generated by Women's tournament tickets is somehow more important than the integrity of the championship.

As I understand it, with the men's tournament, had Louisville not self imposed a post season ban last year, they would not have been allowed to play in the Louisville region. That is a sensible rule. And the Yum Center still bid to host a regional even knowing Louisville wouldn't be playing in it.

But with the Women, Ky last year, and probably again this year, will be allowed to play in Rupp Arena, even though it's on the UK campus, is the home of the UK Men, and is the home court for two games each year for the women. But the idiotic rule used in the women's game is that as long as no more than two games are played at a location, a team is not barred from playing in a regional there. So any school that uses a separate (typically the smaller old) arena for the women can host a regional in their school's men's arena and we'll look the other way at the obvious home court advantage. By playing no more than 2 games at the bigger arena, Ky can host its own regional at Rupp, UConn can play at Bridgeport (don't know if UConn is playing any home games in Bridgeport this year, but they have in other years), UNC could play at the Dean Dome, NCSt could play at PNC, Marquette at the Bradley, Bama at Coleman, UNLV at Thomas & Mack etc.

That's just not right. I think they should separate the hosting and siting. Let anyone host. But put a distance minimum for assigning teams to regional sites.

We can agree that UConn was likely to have won, certainly their region, the last three years regardless of who the ##2 and 3 seeds were. But that doesn't mean that UConn's pathway wasn't easier, and in 2014 way easier, than the other regions.

That it was unnecessary or irrelevant to the outcome doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is still an appearance issue. It really doesn't help the game or the tournament for fans or potential fans to look at the seeding and come away with an impression that the skids have been greased for one team.

I don't think anyone here claimed that it altered the eventual outcome.

One of the benefits of being the top seed is that you have the easiest path, or at least that is the theory. One can quibble over how much easier but frankly, the FF is where the best teams end up. One seeds almost always lose in the regionals usually because they play poorly, not because they face a superior team.

A good example of a program that had a real cakewalk into the FF most years was on the men's side when the regionals were truly regional. The PAC12 stunk except for UCLA and the Bruins faced teams like Montana, New Mexico, Long beach St etc. to get to the FF while the powerhouses east of the Mississippi knocked each other out.

BTW, my fix for the location problem (which is not limited to UConn, by the way) would be to allow regions to be hosted by anyone anywhere, but to prohibit any team from playing in a regional within 100 miles of their campus.

Note that this would not have kept UConn from playing in Albany, ~140 miles from Storrs.

_________________Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know

BTW, my fix for the location problem (which is not limited to UConn, by the way) would be to allow regions to be hosted by anyone anywhere, but to prohibit any team from playing in a regional within 100 miles of their campus.

Note that this would not have kept UConn from playing in Albany, ~140 miles from Storrs.

There has to be a practical limit. If that was the closest it ever was, I could live with that. It would eliminate Bridgeport, Hartford, Providence, and Kingston.

If you want to make it 150 miles, fine, but 100 would take care of most of the problems.

We can agree that UConn was likely to have won, certainly their region, the last three years regardless of who the ##2 and 3 seeds were. But that doesn't mean that UConn's pathway wasn't easier, and in 2014 way easier, than the other regions.

That it was unnecessary or irrelevant to the outcome doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is still an appearance issue. It really doesn't help the game or the tournament for fans or potential fans to look at the seeding and come away with an impression that the skids have been greased for one team.

I don't think anyone here claimed that it altered the eventual outcome.

One of the benefits of being the top seed is that you have the easiest path, or at least that is the theory. One can quibble over how much easier but frankly, the FF is where the best teams end up. One seeds almost always lose in the regionals usually because they play poorly, not because they face a superior team.

A good example of a program that had a real cakewalk into the FF most years was on the men's side when the regionals were truly regional. The PAC12 stunk except for UCLA and the Bruins faced teams like Montana, New Mexico, Long beach St etc. to get to the FF while the powerhouses east of the Mississippi knocked each other out.

We can agree that UConn was likely to have won, certainly their region, the last three years regardless of who the ##2 and 3 seeds were. But that doesn't mean that UConn's pathway wasn't easier, and in 2014 way easier, than the other regions.

That it was unnecessary or irrelevant to the outcome doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is still an appearance issue. It really doesn't help the game or the tournament for fans or potential fans to look at the seeding and come away with an impression that the skids have been greased for one team.

I don't think anyone here claimed that it altered the eventual outcome.

One of the benefits of being the top seed is that you have the easiest path, or at least that is the theory. One can quibble over how much easier but frankly, the FF is where the best teams end up. One seeds almost always lose in the regionals usually because they play poorly, not because they face a superior team.

A good example of a program that had a real cakewalk into the FF most years was on the men's side when the regionals were truly regional. The PAC12 stunk except for UCLA and the Bruins faced teams like Montana, New Mexico, Long beach St etc. to get to the FF while the powerhouses east of the Mississippi knocked each other out.

Of course they did. The actual geographic regions was a large part of UCLA's tournament success. That and the "no second place teams." They didn't have any real competition in the PAC or in the West. You may recall that regions mattered enough that Al McGuire declined an NCAA invitation for Marquette in 1970 because he was pissed off they were being shipped off out of their natural Mid East Region to the Mid West Regional in Fort Worth.

We can agree that UConn was likely to have won, certainly their region, the last three years regardless of who the ##2 and 3 seeds were. But that doesn't mean that UConn's pathway wasn't easier, and in 2014 way easier, than the other regions.

That it was unnecessary or irrelevant to the outcome doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is still an appearance issue. It really doesn't help the game or the tournament for fans or potential fans to look at the seeding and come away with an impression that the skids have been greased for one team.

I don't think anyone here claimed that it altered the eventual outcome.

One of the benefits of being the top seed is that you have the easiest path, or at least that is the theory. One can quibble over how much easier but frankly, the FF is where the best teams end up. One seeds almost always lose in the regionals usually because they play poorly, not because they face a superior team.

A good example of a program that had a real cakewalk into the FF most years was on the men's side when the regionals were truly regional. The PAC12 stunk except for UCLA and the Bruins faced teams like Montana, New Mexico, Long beach St etc. to get to the FF while the powerhouses east of the Mississippi knocked each other out.

Of course they did. The actual geographic regions was a large part of UCLA's tournament success. That and the "no second place teams." They didn't have any real competition in the PAC or in the West. You may recall that regions mattered enough that Al McGuire declined an NCAA invitation for Marquette in 1970 because he was pissed off they were being shipped off out of their natural Mid East Region to the Mid West Regional in Fort Worth.

Hopefully we've moved well beyond that era.

Traveling by jet was too expensive for most schools in those days, and going cross country by other means was too slow. They had no real choice but to regionalize.

_________________Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know

We can agree that UConn was likely to have won, certainly their region, the last three years regardless of who the ##2 and 3 seeds were. But that doesn't mean that UConn's pathway wasn't easier, and in 2014 way easier, than the other regions.

That it was unnecessary or irrelevant to the outcome doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is still an appearance issue. It really doesn't help the game or the tournament for fans or potential fans to look at the seeding and come away with an impression that the skids have been greased for one team.

I don't think anyone here claimed that it altered the eventual outcome.

One of the benefits of being the top seed is that you have the easiest path, or at least that is the theory. One can quibble over how much easier but frankly, the FF is where the best teams end up. One seeds almost always lose in the regionals usually because they play poorly, not because they face a superior team.

A good example of a program that had a real cakewalk into the FF most years was on the men's side when the regionals were truly regional. The PAC12 stunk except for UCLA and the Bruins faced teams like Montana, New Mexico, Long beach St etc. to get to the FF while the powerhouses east of the Mississippi knocked each other out.

Comparing the Mens tourney to the women is not substantial .

Why? If the men have some best practices (such as you can't play in your own arena for a regional), there's no reason why those same rules should not be applied to the women. Because of the money involved in the men's tournament, there is more attention paid to these kinds of issues. Most of the decisions there regarding fairness and integrity should be applied equally to the women. There's nothing about the competition that requires a different treatment.

We can agree that UConn was likely to have won, certainly their region, the last three years regardless of who the ##2 and 3 seeds were. But that doesn't mean that UConn's pathway wasn't easier, and in 2014 way easier, than the other regions.

That it was unnecessary or irrelevant to the outcome doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is still an appearance issue. It really doesn't help the game or the tournament for fans or potential fans to look at the seeding and come away with an impression that the skids have been greased for one team.

I don't think anyone here claimed that it altered the eventual outcome.

One of the benefits of being the top seed is that you have the easiest path, or at least that is the theory. One can quibble over how much easier but frankly, the FF is where the best teams end up. One seeds almost always lose in the regionals usually because they play poorly, not because they face a superior team.

A good example of a program that had a real cakewalk into the FF most years was on the men's side when the regionals were truly regional. The PAC12 stunk except for UCLA and the Bruins faced teams like Montana, New Mexico, Long beach St etc. to get to the FF while the powerhouses east of the Mississippi knocked each other out.

Comparing the Mens tourney to the women is not substantial .

Why? If the men have some best practices (such as you can't play in your own arena for a regional), there's no reason why those same rules should not be applied to the women. Because of the money involved in the men's tournament, there is more attention paid to these kinds of issues. Most of the decisions there regarding fairness and integrity should be applied equally to the women. There's nothing about the competition that requires a different treatment.

The one difference is that the men's regional arenas would fill in any case. There are a lot of arenas that won't bid for regionals because they can't be assured of making a profit if no local teams get placed there. The biggest reason UConn gets to play close to Storrs is because both Bridgeport and Albany (and Kingston & even Trenton are relatively assured of coming close to a full house for both days.

We can agree that UConn was likely to have won, certainly their region, the last three years regardless of who the ##2 and 3 seeds were. But that doesn't mean that UConn's pathway wasn't easier, and in 2014 way easier, than the other regions.

That it was unnecessary or irrelevant to the outcome doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is still an appearance issue. It really doesn't help the game or the tournament for fans or potential fans to look at the seeding and come away with an impression that the skids have been greased for one team.

I don't think anyone here claimed that it altered the eventual outcome.

Nor did I claim anyone did. My post was made for edification purposes re: UConn's regional destination over a substantial number of years.

I wholeheartedly agree (and have said so many times across cyber space over many years) the women's tournament is a general fiasco in this regard, and until it rectifies things deserves the scorn it receives.

We can agree that UConn was likely to have won, certainly their region, the last three years regardless of who the ##2 and 3 seeds were. But that doesn't mean that UConn's pathway wasn't easier, and in 2014 way easier, than the other regions.

That it was unnecessary or irrelevant to the outcome doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is still an appearance issue. It really doesn't help the game or the tournament for fans or potential fans to look at the seeding and come away with an impression that the skids have been greased for one team.

I don't think anyone here claimed that it altered the eventual outcome.

One of the benefits of being the top seed is that you have the easiest path, or at least that is the theory. One can quibble over how much easier but frankly, the FF is where the best teams end up. One seeds almost always lose in the regionals usually because they play poorly, not because they face a superior team.

A good example of a program that had a real cakewalk into the FF most years was on the men's side when the regionals were truly regional. The PAC12 stunk except for UCLA and the Bruins faced teams like Montana, New Mexico, Long beach St etc. to get to the FF while the powerhouses east of the Mississippi knocked each other out.

Comparing the Mens tourney to the women is not substantial .

Why? If the men have some best practices (such as you can't play in your own arena for a regional), there's no reason why those same rules should not be applied to the women. Because of the money involved in the men's tournament, there is more attention paid to these kinds of issues. Most of the decisions there regarding fairness and integrity should be applied equally to the women. There's nothing about the competition that requires a different treatment.

The one difference is that the men's regional arenas would fill in any case. There are a lot of arenas that won't bid for regionals because they can't be assured of making a profit if no local teams get placed there. The biggest reason UConn gets to play close to Storrs is because both Bridgeport and Albany (and Kingston & even Trenton are relatively assured of coming close to a full house for both days.

That just isn't on my list of concerns.

As I've said before, the NCAA pays for all of its activities and has truckloads of cash leftover to distribute to schools from its billion dollar TV contract for the men's tournament. Making money on the WBB tournament is as irrelevant as making money on the field hockey tournament or Div III volleyball tournament. When addressing the integrity of the competition, impact on ticket sales for the WBB tournament shouldn't even be on the list of considerations.

We can agree that UConn was likely to have won, certainly their region, the last three years regardless of who the ##2 and 3 seeds were. But that doesn't mean that UConn's pathway wasn't easier, and in 2014 way easier, than the other regions.

That it was unnecessary or irrelevant to the outcome doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is still an appearance issue. It really doesn't help the game or the tournament for fans or potential fans to look at the seeding and come away with an impression that the skids have been greased for one team.

I don't think anyone here claimed that it altered the eventual outcome.

One of the benefits of being the top seed is that you have the easiest path, or at least that is the theory. One can quibble over how much easier but frankly, the FF is where the best teams end up. One seeds almost always lose in the regionals usually because they play poorly, not because they face a superior team.

A good example of a program that had a real cakewalk into the FF most years was on the men's side when the regionals were truly regional. The PAC12 stunk except for UCLA and the Bruins faced teams like Montana, New Mexico, Long beach St etc. to get to the FF while the powerhouses east of the Mississippi knocked each other out.

Comparing the Mens tourney to the women is not substantial .

Why? If the men have some best practices (such as you can't play in your own arena for a regional), there's no reason why those same rules should not be applied to the women. Because of the money involved in the men's tournament, there is more attention paid to these kinds of issues. Most of the decisions there regarding fairness and integrity should be applied equally to the women. There's nothing about the competition that requires a different treatment.

The one difference is that the men's regional arenas would fill in any case. There are a lot of arenas that won't bid for regionals because they can't be assured of making a profit if no local teams get placed there. The biggest reason UConn gets to play close to Storrs is because both Bridgeport and Albany (and Kingston & even Trenton are relatively assured of coming close to a full house for both days.

That just isn't on my list of concerns.

As I've said before, the NCAA pays for all of its activities and has truckloads of cash leftover to distribute to schools from its billion dollar TV contract for the men's tournament. Making money on the WBB tournament is as irrelevant as making money on the field hockey tournament or Div III volleyball tournament. When addressing the integrity of the competition, impact on ticket sales for the WBB tournament shouldn't even be on the list of considerations.

Somebody will be happy to host.

I'm not 100% sure the issue for the NCAA is "impact on ticket sales for the WBB tournament", at least if "ticket sales" is supposed to reference cash flows. I'd wager that the bigger issue for the NCAA is the potential public embarrassment that may come with producing and televising an NCAA basketball tournament in which there are very few actual butts in seats. I'd imagine that for several reasons (including the preferences of the contractual television partners to which you've alluded above), the NCAA wants its tourney games played in full(ish), energetic arenas. Right or wrong, it appears that the NCAA considers the current structure of its Women's Tournament to be the best possible compromise between its fairness/integrity interests and its marketing interests.

I'm not 100% sure the issue for the NCAA is "impact on ticket sales for the WBB tournament", at least if "ticket sales" is supposed to reference cash flows. I'd wager that the bigger issue for the NCAA is the potential public embarrassment that may come with producing and televising an NCAA basketball tournament in which there are very few actual butts in seats. I'd imagine that for several reasons (including the preferences of the contractual television partners to which you've alluded above), the NCAA wants its tourney games played in full(ish), energetic arenas. Right or wrong, it appears that the NCAA considers the current structure of its Women's Tournament to be the best possible compromise between its fairness/integrity interests and its marketing interests.

I don't think they ever had competitive fairness and integrity high on their list of concerns. They're quite open about worrying about the revenue from ticket sales. The Ackerman Report was replete with it.

I think there are some people offended by the notion of the women's tournament being subsidized by the men's and are obsessed with being self sufficient, even to the point of giving a team like KY home court advantage, even over higher seeded teams, so long as it sells a few more tickets.

We can agree that UConn was likely to have won, certainly their region, the last three years regardless of who the ##2 and 3 seeds were. But that doesn't mean that UConn's pathway wasn't easier, and in 2014 way easier, than the other regions.

That it was unnecessary or irrelevant to the outcome doesn't mean it didn't happen. There is still an appearance issue. It really doesn't help the game or the tournament for fans or potential fans to look at the seeding and come away with an impression that the skids have been greased for one team.

I don't think anyone here claimed that it altered the eventual outcome.

One of the benefits of being the top seed is that you have the easiest path, or at least that is the theory. One can quibble over how much easier but frankly, the FF is where the best teams end up. One seeds almost always lose in the regionals usually because they play poorly, not because they face a superior team.

A good example of a program that had a real cakewalk into the FF most years was on the men's side when the regionals were truly regional. The PAC12 stunk except for UCLA and the Bruins faced teams like Montana, New Mexico, Long beach St etc. to get to the FF while the powerhouses east of the Mississippi knocked each other out.

Comparing the Mens tourney to the women is not substantial .

Why? If the men have some best practices (such as you can't play in your own arena for a regional), there's no reason why those same rules should not be applied to the women. Because of the money involved in the men's tournament, there is more attention paid to these kinds of issues. Most of the decisions there regarding fairness and integrity should be applied equally to the women. There's nothing about the competition that requires a different treatment.

The one difference is that the men's regional arenas would fill in any case. There are a lot of arenas that won't bid for regionals because they can't be assured of making a profit if no local teams get placed there. The biggest reason UConn gets to play close to Storrs is because both Bridgeport and Albany (and Kingston & even Trenton are relatively assured of coming close to a full house for both days.

That just isn't on my list of concerns.

As I've said before, the NCAA pays for all of its activities and has truckloads of cash leftover to distribute to schools from its billion dollar TV contract for the men's tournament. Making money on the WBB tournament is as irrelevant as making money on the field hockey tournament or Div III volleyball tournament. When addressing the integrity of the competition, impact on ticket sales for the WBB tournament shouldn't even be on the list of considerations.

Somebody will be happy to host.

Art I wasn't talking about the schools, I was referring to the arena owners. Women's basketball has a hard time drawing in many areas. There's a reason S Cal doesn't get any regionals. Or most of Fla. Yes, somebody IS happy to host, Bridgeport or Albany or Kingston. Or schools like Notre Dame or Kentucky.

But I doubt Notre Dame would be willing to host under your 100 mile rule.

First, I gave two points for a win over a top 25 RPI team and one for a win over a 26-50 RPI team.

Then, I subtracted one point for a loss to a 26-50 team, and two for a loss against a sub-50 team.

I then added points based on the remaining schedule: .5 for a game remaining against a top 25 RPI team and .25 for a game against a 26-50 RPI team.

Teams more than one game under .500 in conference are not allowed in.

Many teams were moved within the same seed to prevent teams in the same conference from meeting before the conference finals or to meet the new rules about conferences with top four seeds. In this instance six teams swapped seeds to avoid this. Auburn, Creighton, and Gonzaga moved up one; Missouri, South Florida, and Texas A&M moved down one.

Ties went in favor of the team with the most points on current wins and losses. If still tied then better RPI.

The cut off for getting in as an at large was -3.75 points. It took 12.25 points to get a #1 seed.

_________________Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know

First, I gave two points for a win over a top 25 RPI team and one for a win over a 26-50 RPI team.

Then, I subtracted one point for a loss to a 26-50 team, and two for a loss against a sub-50 team.

I then added points based on the remaining schedule: .5 for a game remaining against a top 25 RPI team and .25 for a game against a 26-50 RPI team.

Teams more than one game under .500 in conference are not allowed in.

Many teams were moved within the same seed to prevent teams in the same conference from meeting before the conference finals or to meet the new rules about conferences with top four seeds. In this instance six teams swapped seeds to avoid this. Auburn, Creighton, and Gonzaga moved up one; Missouri, South Florida, and Texas A&M moved down one.

Ties went in favor of the team with the most points on current wins and losses. If still tied then better RPI.

The cut off for getting in as an at large was -3.75 points. It took 12.25 points to get a #1 seed.

the baylor bracket has been the same the last 10 years it feels , ND & Baylor same bracket AGAIN ..something has to change eventually guys . Would this mean Baylor as the Higher Seed Playing a Regional Final vs ND on The irish floor ?

I expect the likely outcome to be UConn, Baylor, the SEC champion, and the ACC champion as the four #1 seeds.

None of the ACC schools deserve a #1 seed Unless FSU Runs the table with the reg season and Conf tourney . I expect UCONN , BU , SC OR MS State with a curve ball of FSU or The Pac 12 Champ

The likelihood of two SEC teams getting #1 seeds is remote.

SCar still has a loss to UConn coming, and has to beat Tenn and KY twice. Plus one of the two will lose in the SEC tournament.

Whichever of FSU or ND wins the ACC will likely end up as a #1.

'
If ND Wins out and wins the ACC tourney there still not a #1 seed to Me. The Pac 12 has the better conference and OSU winning out should leapfrog anyone in the ACC except FSU . Just my personal opinion though

I expect the likely outcome to be UConn, Baylor, the SEC champion, and the ACC champion as the four #1 seeds.

Despite the numbers, if a team goes undefeated through a major conference, wins their conference tournament, and has only one loss (a close one against the #1 team in the country), they will get a #1 seed.

_________________Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know

I expect the likely outcome to be UConn, Baylor, the SEC champion, and the ACC champion as the four #1 seeds.

None of the ACC schools deserve a #1 seed Unless FSU Runs the table with the reg season and Conf tourney . I expect UCONN , BU , SC OR MS State with a curve ball of FSU or The Pac 12 Champ

The likelihood of two SEC teams getting #1 seeds is remote.

SCar still has a loss to UConn coming, and has to beat Tenn and KY twice. Plus one of the two will lose in the SEC tournament.

Whichever of FSU or ND wins the ACC will likely end up as a #1.

'
If ND Wins out and wins the ACC tourney there still not a #1 seed to Me. The Pac 12 has the better conference and OSU winning out should leapfrog anyone in the ACC except FSU . Just my personal opinion though

The PAC got smoked in their major OOC games. That's reflected in the standings of their best teams in the polls and RPI.

I expect the likely outcome to be UConn, Baylor, the SEC champion, and the ACC champion as the four #1 seeds.

Despite the numbers, if a team goes undefeated through a major conference, wins their conference tournament, and has only one loss (a close one against the #1 team in the country), they will get a #1 seed.

This is like saying a #1 seed is Maryland's to lose. So you should program this notion into your algorithm.

_________________Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned

I expect the likely outcome to be UConn, Baylor, the SEC champion, and the ACC champion as the four #1 seeds.

Despite the numbers, if a team goes undefeated through a major conference, wins their conference tournament, and has only one loss (a close one against the #1 team in the country), they will get a #1 seed.

This is like saying a #1 seed is Maryland's to lose. So you should program this notion into your algorithm.

And that Should not be the case , via Eye Test Notre Dame Is NOT one of the top 4 teams in the country.

I expect the likely outcome to be UConn, Baylor, the SEC champion, and the ACC champion as the four #1 seeds.

Despite the numbers, if a team goes undefeated through a major conference, wins their conference tournament, and has only one loss (a close one against the #1 team in the country), they will get a #1 seed.

This is like saying a #1 seed is Maryland's to lose. So you should program this notion into your algorithm.

And that Should not be the case , via Eye Test Notre Dame Is NOT one of the top 4 teams in the country.

Notre Dame, with three losses including one in conference, does not fit my description at all.

_________________Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know

I expect the likely outcome to be UConn, Baylor, the SEC champion, and the ACC champion as the four #1 seeds.

Despite the numbers, if a team goes undefeated through a major conference, wins their conference tournament, and has only one loss (a close one against the #1 team in the country), they will get a #1 seed.

This is like saying a #1 seed is Maryland's to lose. So you should program this notion into your algorithm.

And that Should not be the case , via Eye Test Notre Dame Is NOT one of the top 4 teams in the country.

I'm still trying to figure out the logic that FSU deserves a #1 seed but if ND beats FSU twice, ND doesn't.

I expect the likely outcome to be UConn, Baylor, the SEC champion, and the ACC champion as the four #1 seeds.

Despite the numbers, if a team goes undefeated through a major conference, wins their conference tournament, and has only one loss (a close one against the #1 team in the country), they will get a #1 seed.

This is like saying a #1 seed is Maryland's to lose. So you should program this notion into your algorithm.

And that Should not be the case , via Eye Test Notre Dame Is NOT one of the top 4 teams in the country.

I'm still trying to figure out the logic that FSU deserves a #1 seed but if ND beats FSU twice, ND doesn't.

I expect the likely outcome to be UConn, Baylor, the SEC champion, and the ACC champion as the four #1 seeds.

Despite the numbers, if a team goes undefeated through a major conference, wins their conference tournament, and has only one loss (a close one against the #1 team in the country), they will get a #1 seed.

This is like saying a #1 seed is Maryland's to lose. So you should program this notion into your algorithm.

And that Should not be the case , via Eye Test Notre Dame Is NOT one of the top 4 teams in the country.

I'm still trying to figure out the logic that FSU deserves a #1 seed but if ND beats FSU twice, ND doesn't.

Because Notre Dame Has lost to a team With Losses to VT & Penn St

Guess that rules out Stanford if they win the PAC. And SCar lost to a team that lost to Vandy and to Notre Dame. And what's going to happen if Tenn beats SCar tonight. And Ore St lost to a team that lost to Santa Clara and SJU and Creighton and Providence.

I expect the likely outcome to be UConn, Baylor, the SEC champion, and the ACC champion as the four #1 seeds.

Despite the numbers, if a team goes undefeated through a major conference, wins their conference tournament, and has only one loss (a close one against the #1 team in the country), they will get a #1 seed.

This is like saying a #1 seed is Maryland's to lose. So you should program this notion into your algorithm.

And that Should not be the case , via Eye Test Notre Dame Is NOT one of the top 4 teams in the country.

I'm still trying to figure out the logic that FSU deserves a #1 seed but if ND beats FSU twice, ND doesn't.

Because Notre Dame Has lost to a team With Losses to VT & Penn St

Guess that rules out Stanford if they win the PAC. And SCar lost to a team that lost to Vandy and to Notre Dame. And what's going to happen if Tenn beats SCar tonight. And Ore St lost to a team that lost to Santa Clara and SJU and Creighton and Providence.

You're going to have a hell of a time finding four number 1 seeds.

Id Probably end up with 8 lol which would see about correct for this years tourney . Great for drama and headliners though hopefully the parity continues throughout the year. Honestly ND can get a #1 seed but due to there disappointment of expectations i personally set for them i dont feel they deserve it . I doubt the win the ACC anyway

Guess that rules out Stanford if they win the PAC. And SCar lost to a team that lost to Vandy and to Notre Dame. And what's going to happen if Tenn beats SCar tonight. And Ore St lost to a team that lost to Santa Clara and SJU and Creighton and Providence.

You're going to have a hell of a time finding four number 1 seeds.

Id Probably end up with 8 lol which would see about correct for this years tourney . Great for drama and headliners though hopefully the parity continues throughout the year. Honestly ND can get a #1 seed but due to there disappointment of expectations i personally set for them i dont feel they deserve it . I doubt the win the ACC anyway

Well I guess SCar is disqualified in your bracket too. You're running out of options.

First, I gave two points for a win over a top 25 RPI team and one for a win over a 26-50 RPI team.

Then, I subtracted one point for a loss to a 26-50 team, and two for a loss against a sub-50 team.

I then added points based on the remaining schedule: .5 for a game remaining against a top 25 RPI team and .25 for a game against a 26-50 RPI team.

Teams more than one game under .500 in conference are not allowed in.

Many teams were moved within the same seed to prevent teams in the same conference from meeting before the conference finals or to meet the new rules about conferences with top four seeds. In this instance eight teams swapped seeds to avoid this. Syracuse, South Florida, Texas A&M, and St John's moved up one; Tennessee, California, Michigan, and Auburn moved down one.

Ties went in favor of the team with the most points on current wins and losses. If still tied then better RPI.

The cut off for getting in as an at large was -4 points. It took 14.5 points to get a #1 seed.

_________________Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know

First, I gave two points for a win over a top 25 RPI team and one for a win over a 26-50 RPI team.

Then, I subtracted one point for a loss to a 26-50 team, and two for a loss against a sub-50 team.

I then added points based on the remaining schedule: .5 for a game remaining against a top 25 RPI team and .25 for a game against a 26-50 RPI team.

Teams more than one game under .500 in conference are not allowed in.

Many teams were moved within the same seed to prevent teams in the same conference from meeting before the conference finals or to meet the new rules about conferences with top four seeds. In this instance eight teams swapped seeds to avoid this. Syracuse, South Florida, Texas A&M, and St John's moved up one; Tennessee, California, Michigan, and Auburn moved down one.

Ties went in favor of the team with the most points on current wins and losses. If still tied then better RPI.

The cut off for getting in as an at large was -4 points. It took 14.5 points to get a #1 seed.

Baylor With the bracket of death while uconn cakewalks in the tourney continues

First, I gave two points for a win over a top 25 RPI team and one for a win over a 26-50 RPI team.

Then, I subtracted one point for a loss to a 26-50 team, and two for a loss against a sub-50 team.

I then added points based on the remaining schedule: .5 for a game remaining against a top 25 RPI team and .25 for a game against a 26-50 RPI team.

Teams more than one game under .500 in conference are not allowed in.

Many teams were moved within the same seed to prevent teams in the same conference from meeting before the conference finals or to meet the new rules about conferences with top four seeds. In this instance eight teams swapped seeds to avoid this. Syracuse, South Florida, Texas A&M, and St John's moved up one; Tennessee, California, Michigan, and Auburn moved down one.

Ties went in favor of the team with the most points on current wins and losses. If still tied then better RPI.

The cut off for getting in as an at large was -4 points. It took 14.5 points to get a #1 seed.

When you do your Field of 64, do you have to enter in all your input manually or can you import the RPI data automatically somehow?

First, I gave two points for a win over a top 25 RPI team and one for a win over a 26-50 RPI team.

Then, I subtracted one point for a loss to a 26-50 team, and two for a loss against a sub-50 team.

I then added points based on the remaining schedule: .5 for a game remaining against a top 25 RPI team and .25 for a game against a 26-50 RPI team.

Teams more than one game under .500 in conference are not allowed in.

Many teams were moved within the same seed to prevent teams in the same conference from meeting before the conference finals or to meet the new rules about conferences with top four seeds. In this instance eight teams swapped seeds to avoid this. Syracuse, South Florida, Texas A&M, and St John's moved up one; Tennessee, California, Michigan, and Auburn moved down one.

Ties went in favor of the team with the most points on current wins and losses. If still tied then better RPI.

The cut off for getting in as an at large was -4 points. It took 14.5 points to get a #1 seed.

When you do your Field of 64, do you have to enter in all your input manually or can you import the RPI data automatically somehow?

I take the official PDF from here and convert it into a spreadsheet. Then put in the formulas. The schedule stuff I have to put in manually.

_________________Come love come, the road lies low
The way is long and hard I know

I expect the likely outcome to be UConn, Baylor, the SEC champion, and the ACC champion as the four #1 seeds.

Despite the numbers, if a team goes undefeated through a major conference, wins their conference tournament, and has only one loss (a close one against the #1 team in the country), they will get a #1 seed.

This is like saying a #1 seed is Maryland's to lose. So you should program this notion into your algorithm.

And that Should not be the case , via Eye Test Notre Dame Is NOT one of the top 4 teams in the country.

I'm still trying to figure out the logic that FSU deserves a #1 seed but if ND beats FSU twice, ND doesn't.

Because Notre Dame Has lost to a team With Losses to VT & Penn St

And now S Carolina has lost to a team with losses to VT & Penn State. I guess they don't deserve a 1 seed either?

And Miss St has exactly one win against a team of any note, Texas. I just don't think they have the resume of a 1 seed.

And finally, it's revealing that MD is dismissed until they end up as the 4 seed in the region of some poster's favorite team, then they become a nightmare.
Have no fear, I'm fairly certain that due to geography MD will end up in UConn's region and those same posters can then go back to ridiculing their schedule.

And Miss St has exactly one win against a team of any note, Texas. I just don't think they have the resume of a 1 seed.

Other than UConn, who does?

It's a mess this year. No matter what system is used there are tough teams that come up as 3-4 seeds. There are 5 PAC12 teams, none of whom are expected to be 1 seeds that will be tough outs in the S16 and E8. No matter how undeserving MD appears no one wants to face them in their team's regional. Those who think that two SEC teams deserve one seeds are looking at RPI but ignore Notre Dame's No 2 RPI. They said that ND lost to Tenn but now need another tack after S Carolina shit the bed. Tenn has the best record vs top 10 teams, having beat 3 of them and yet their losses belie any thought of giving them a high seed. Then there's tOSU. Who wants to play them?

NC State, with an RPI of 36, looks to be the lowest rated team per RPI to make the top 16. This year is unusual because its rare in women's basketball to see many upsets but you have teams like NC State and Tennessee who have big wins but then some surprising losses. How to properly seed them, beats me.

Maryland is a 3 seed and given that they still have to play Illinois and Wisconsin, their numbers could get worse from here. If they lose one game in the regular season (Ohio State?) and once in the conference tournament, could they drop to a 4 or 5 seed?

NC State, with an RPI of 36, looks to be the lowest rated team per RPI to make the top 16. This year is unusual because its rare in women's basketball to see many upsets but you have teams like NC State and Tennessee who have big wins but then some surprising losses. How to properly seed them, beats me.

Maryland is a 3 seed and given that they still have to play Illinois and Wisconsin, their numbers could get worse from here. If they lose one game in the regular season (Ohio State?) and once in the conference tournament, could they drop to a 4 or 5 seed?

Texas beating Baylor means Texas has to have jumped Maryland so Maryland is now #10.
I think Maryland might have to have 3 more losses to drop out of the Top 16 though.

Edit: Stanford losing to UCLA would put Maryland back at #9.

Last edited by SpaceJunkie on 02/06/17 10:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

NC State, with an RPI of 36, looks to be the lowest rated team per RPI to make the top 16. This year is unusual because its rare in women's basketball to see many upsets but you have teams like NC State and Tennessee who have big wins but then some surprising losses. How to properly seed them, beats me.

Maryland is a 3 seed and given that they still have to play Illinois and Wisconsin, their numbers could get worse from here. If they lose one game in the regular season (Ohio State?) and once in the conference tournament, could they drop to a 4 or 5 seed?

Your two paragraphs sort of illustrate the Maryland problem. Forget the top five teams. What would Maryland's record be if they played some teams like NCSt, Tennessee, Texas, Duke. Would they have lost one or two? Good chance. Those teams aren't top ten, but they have all beaten other teams as good as Maryland.

NC State, with an RPI of 36, looks to be the lowest rated team per RPI to make the top 16. This year is unusual because its rare in women's basketball to see many upsets but you have teams like NC State and Tennessee who have big wins but then some surprising losses. How to properly seed them, beats me.

Maryland is a 3 seed and given that they still have to play Illinois and Wisconsin, their numbers could get worse from here. If they lose one game in the regular season (Ohio State?) and once in the conference tournament, could they drop to a 4 or 5 seed?

Your two paragraphs sort of illustrate the Maryland problem. Forget the top five teams. What would Maryland's record be if they played some teams like NCSt, Tennessee, Texas, Duke. Would they have lost one or two? Good chance. Those teams aren't top ten, but they have all beaten other teams as good as Maryland.

At this point I think Maryland should max out as a 3 seed. Based on the eye test I think they are a 2 seed and maybe in the mix for the 4th one seed but I think the committee is right based on the criteria they use. The thing is it would be so easy for them to have a respectable RPI, just stop playing these sub 300 RPI teams and maybe sub 250 too. Playing UConn, @ Louisville, Arizona State and Washington State on neutral floors, Duquesne on the road, some solid matchups. The guarantee games they picked killed their RPI.

I could probably construct a schedule full of teams they'd beat by 25 or more and still have a good RPI. The only logical thing I can think of is they were just wanting to play bad teams that would require the smallest payout for guarantee games, or they just assume all low to mid majors are the same. Otherwise, why play a UMass-Lowell, RPI sub 300, when you could pay George Mason to bus up to Maryland and get blown out? George Mason has an RPI of 155, so much better than UMass-Lowell but basically no chance of upsetting Maryland.